Benton RSS Feed
INSIDE THE BELTWAY NEWSPAPERS LYING ABOUT NET NEUTRALITY? WHAT A SURPRISE
[SOURCE: Tech Dirt]
[Commentary] Two separate editorials from DC newspapers both oppose net neutrality efforts -- and yet, both seem to be filled with outright lies or misleading half-truths. The real issue with net neutrality is that there isn't enough competition in the broadband space. If there were real competition, network neutrality wouldn't even be on the table for discussion. The Washington Post tries to get by this point by claiming that there is real competition in the broadband space, stating that 60% of all zip codes have four or more choices. Of course, reading that language, you can tell immediately that it's coming from the FCC's discredited broadband penetration numbers. The FCC counts on a per zip code basis -- so if a broadband provider offers broadband to a single house in that zip code, the entire zip code is considered covered by that provider. The General Accounting Office's own study found much, much lower broadband penetration than the FCC numbers suggest. Then, the Washington Times chimes in with its own anti-network neutrality screed, saying that we shouldn't worry about network neutrality because there's no problem yet. This, of course, has been the argument that the telcos have raised for many years, just more vocally these days. As we've noted, there is some truth to this -- but that doesn't mean network neutrality issues deserve to be ignored. As some have pointed out there are plenty of "speculative" dangers that the government decides are worth paying attention to, such as potential terrorist attacks or bird flu. And, in the case of network neutrality, the executives of AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth have all stated very publicly that they would like to break the basic concepts of network neutrality, and make Google pay again for the part of the Internet you already pay for. The Washington Times piece also totally mischaracterizes the debate, claiming that network neutrality means the telcos can't charge sites like Google more for the bandwidth they use. This is flat out false. The high bandwidth users online, such as Google, Yahoo, Vonage and others are already paying for their bandwidth. What the telcos are trying to get them to do is pay double for your bandwidth as well. The current network neutrality proposals in Congress are really a side issue that completely ignores the real issue (the lack of competition). It's no secret that some of the proposals in Congress have problems as well, but that doesn't mean the issue of network neutrality should be brushed aside. Of course, instead of getting any serious debate, we're getting soundbites, lies, misleading arguments, propaganda and celebrity endorsements. The whole debate, on both sides, has become a joke.
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060612/2346200.shtml
* THE WASHINGTON POST’S EDITORIAL BOARD ON NETWORK NEUTRALITY: BOY, DO THEY NEED SOMEONE WHO KNOWS THE MEDIA BUSINESS WORKING THERE!
The Washington Post’s editorial position on media and communications policy issues has generally taken a pro-consolidation line over the years. This is ironic and sad, especially given the concerns expressed by the paper’s two top editors about the dramatic decline of quality in U.S. journalism.
By Jeff Chester, Digital Destiny
http://www.democraticmedia.org/jcblog/
Inside The Beltway Newspapers Lying About Net Neutrality? What A Surprise
THE INTERNET MUST REMAIN OPEN FOR INNOVATION
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Rep. John Conyers (D-MI)]
[Commentary] Over the past decade, the Internet has revolutionized the way the world works, including the way we think and the way we shop, learn and communicate. It has created a global marketplace in which a single person running a business from home can access millions of potential customers equally as well as a multinational corporation. This information superhighway allows us to access unprecedented amounts of information and opinions and has become a safe harbor for First Amendment rights in which everyone can discuss whatever is important to them. However, because we have only begun to see the potential of this incredible resource, it is crucial that we protect the Internet and ensure that it remains the platform for innovation that it is today. I believe the way to do that is through network-neutrality legislation. The need for strong, narrowly tailored legislation to ensure network neutrality is widely supported. Time is of the essence. We cannot stand by and let the cable and phone companies re-create the Internet to suit their needs. The possibilities of a future that the Internet can and will bring are infinite and exciting, but we must act now to ensure that the endless possibilities remain just that -- possible.
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061406/ss_conye...
The Internet must remain open for innovation
CABLE COMPETITIVENESS AND BROADBAND DEPLOYMENT SPUR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Rep. Fred Upton (R-MI)]
[Commentary] Last week, the House overwhelmingly -- by a supermajority vote of 321-101 -- approved HR 5252, the Communications Opportunity, Promotion and Enforcement Act of 2006. In approving this legislation, the House emphatically and unhesitatingly rejected the status quo in the cable-television marketplace, in which most consumers have access to only one cable provider and prices steadily climb, and embraced choice and competition — and the lower prices and innovative services this will bring. The status quo is that only 2 percent of the cable marketplace is being served by more than one provider, so the vast majority of consumers have no choice, notwithstanding the fact that there are cable overbuilders and, thanks to new technology and investment, phone companies (both big and small, rural ones) that seek to compete in the cable marketplace. But with approximately 33,000 local franchise authorities nationwide, the locality-by-locality-by-locality franchise-negotiation process is standing in the way their competitive entry and progress. H.R. 5252 will help drive investment in broadband deployment and bring multiple providers of bundled voice, video and broadband data services than ever before. And this competition will bring prices down as a result, which will be great news to family budgets across the nation.
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061406/ss_upton...
Cable competitiveness and broadband deployment spur economic development
USF CAN PROVIDE COST-EFFECTIVE BROADBAND ACCESS TO EVERY STATE
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska)]
[Commentary] A recent Government Accountability Office report found that two-thirds of Americans do not have access to broadband service. Several factors have prevented Americans from accessing broadband service; chief among these is cost. Broadband is too expensive for some families, and others cannot even afford to purchase home computers. We must address this issue now because the delay in deploying affordable high-speed Internet service is stifling innovation and limiting our ability to compete in the global marketplace. Later this month, the Senate Commerce Committee will consider S. 2686, the Communications, Consumer’s Choice and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006. The centerpiece of S. 2686 is a program called Universal Service, which helps provide affordable communications services in every state. This bill updates the program for the digital age by using Universal Service Fund money to establish a $500 million account that will finance broadband deployment to unserved areas.
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061406/ss_steve...
USF can provide cost-effective broadband access to every state
CONSUMER CHOICE IN VIDEO IS WITHIN REACH IN 2006
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Sen. John Ensign (R-NV)]
[Commentary] Congress needs to act now to modernize our communications laws. With each passing day, our lack of action to ensure our laws keep up with the rapid march of technology relegates the United States to a position further and further back in the pack of technology leading countries. The Internet has been incredible in its resilience and success despite rapidly changing technology, mostly because the government has stayed out of the business of regulating the Internet. Today, the Internet operates based on private contractual arrangements, free from the greedy paws of government regulators and tax collectors. We should not impose on the Internet a slow-moving, stodgy government regulation that will do real harm to innovation. If we are going to legislate in this area, as some have called for, I believe the key to reaching consensus is keeping a consumer-focused approach in whatever legislative steps we take. The key components of a consumer-centric approach to network neutrality are saying in no uncertain terms what consumers should be able to expect from their online experience, including the freedom to get to any legal website, the use of any application of the customer’s choosing and the freedom to choose a voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) service from any competitor without having that service blocked or intentionally degraded.
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061406/ss_ensig...
Consumer choice in video is within reach in 2006
WARRANTLESS TAPPING OF AMERICANS' TELEPHONE CALLS IS UNACCEPTABLE
[SOURCE: The Hill, AUTHOR: Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss)]
[Commentary] Sept. 11, 2001, was the most tragic and horrific event to take place in modern American history. However, it should not serve as the administration’s free pass to trample upon the rights and liberties of American citizens, under the guise of “national security.†When we implement polices and procedures that are not in line with our constitutional values, we must then ask the question if we are truly winning the war on terrorism. We say that we are a country that believes privacy is important and that we won't trample on the rights of our citizens unless we have legal authorization to do so; yet policies like the NSA surveillance program undermine these beliefs. If we allow the threat of terrorism and the presence of those who wish to do us harm to cause us to place the constitutional privacy of our own citizens at risk, they win and we lose.
http://thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/061406/ss_thomp...
Warrantless tapping of Americans’ telephone calls is unacceptable
"I think we're now ready to work on a final draft," Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said, following testimony from a panel of industry executives, academics, media activists and even the National Guard, all taking their last official shots at shaping a bill aimed at streamlining the video franchise process as well as addressing numerous other issues from the broadcast flag and unlicensed wireless devices to the DTV transition and even reducing phone rates for soldiers stationed abroad.
http://www.benton.org/index.php?q=node/2686
NET NEUTRALITY FIGHT RETURNS TO SENATE
[SOURCE: C-Net|News.com, AUTHOR: Anne Broache]
The political tussle over Net neutrality shifted back to the Senate's turf Tuesday, taking center stage at the last public hearing before a mammoth communications bill goes up for a preliminary vote. As leaders of the Senate Commerce Committee continue negotiations over how to deal with the controversial concept, committee members and witnesses from advocacy groups took turns airing their positions yet again. It would be a tragedy for our nation if Net neutrality is the basis for which this entire bill is taken down, and that's a very real possibility, the way I see this bill shaping up," said Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR). Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, an Alaska Republican, said he was confident that the politicians would reach a compromise but that they should favor a light regulatory touch. "We ought to talk about the FCC having the right to deal with Net neutrality issues that affect consumers," he said, echoing remarks made last week. "When it comes to interfering with the marketplace in terms of major investments of capital, I think we should step away." "What would be the impact with no legislation?" Sen Daniel Inouye (D-HI) asked Ben Scott, policy director for the liberal advocacy group Free Press, who testified on a panel before the politicians. "A structural change in the Internet which would, for better or for worse, change the way the Internet works," Scott replied, adding that nondiscrimination has been a "cornerstone" of Internet policy since the technology's birth. Major network operators from the telecommunications and cable industries, the wireless and hardware sectors, and Wall Street interests have mobilized against that Net Neutrality, saying new regulations are premature and could stifle investment in new infrastructure. "There are existing procedures at the FCC and in antitrust law to deal with anticompetitive issues," said John Rutledge, a consultant for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a pro-business lobbying organization. "I think the idea of trying to stop change or control prices is a (recipe) for disaster." Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) scoffed at that notion, saying attempts at enforcing antitrust laws "make glaciers look like they're speeding."
http://news.com.com/Net+neutrality+fight+returns+to+Senate/2100-1028_3-6...
* Senate chairman vows to fight net neutrality regulation
[SOURCE: IDG News Service, AUTHOR: Grant Gross]
Senate Commerce Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said Tuesday he would not allow broadband providers to be regulated like large telephone carriers were in the past, despite calls for a law prohibiting broadband providers from blocking or slowing some Internet traffic. Net neutrality backers want a return to "common carrier" requirements, in which telecom carriers were required to give all customers the same service and standard rates, Sen Stevens said during a hearing on a communications reform bill. "We're not going to do that," said Stevens. His comments came after some committee Democrats and witness Ben Scott, policy director of advocacy group Free Press, called for stronger net neutrality rules in a Stevens bill. His proposal would overhaul telecom regulations and streamline local franchising requirements for telecom providers looking to offer television services over Internet Protocol, in competition with cable TV.
http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/06/13/79254_HNchairnetneut_1.html?so...
* Senate Telecom Debate Hints Consensus Will Be Tough To Reach
http://www.njtelecomupdate.com/lenya/telco/live/tb-HQEJ1150311779816.html
* Free Press asks Senate to Save Net Neutrality, Ensure Universal Access to New Networks
http://www.freepress.net/press/release.php?id=151
Net Neutrality fight Returns to Senate
SENATE FRANCHISE BILL MARKUP POSTPONED
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The Senate Commerce Committee is now scheduled to vote on the Communications, Consumers' Choice, and Broadband Deployment Act of 2006 June 22 instead of the 20th. "I think we're now ready to work on a final draft," Committee Chairman Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) said, following testimony from a panel of industry executives, academics, media activists and even the National Guard, all taking their last official shots at shaping a the bill aimed at streamlining the video franchise process as well as addressing numerous other issues from the broadcast flag and unlicensed wireless devices to the DTV transition and even reducing phone rates for soldiers stationed abroad. Reactions to the committee's second draft of the bill, which began circulating in the wider world Monday, varied.
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6343331?display=Breaking+News
* Vote Set on New Telecom Bill
http://www.multichannel.com/article/CA6343555.html?display=Breaking+News
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6343331?display=Breaking%20News
COMMITTEE RESTORES SOME CPB FUNDS
[SOURCE: Broadcasting&Cable, AUTHOR: John Eggerton]
The full House Appropriations Committee Tuesday restored $20 million cut from the FY2007 appropriation for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting -- it is back up to $400 million -- but it left over $80 million in cuts, including all the funding for Ready To Learn and Ready To Teach programs and money for the digital transition, as well as any advance appropriation for 2009. CPB President Patrician Harrison was politic in her response, as she was when the initial cuts were made in subcommittee last week, but continued to push for more money. “While we appreciate the committee’s efforts in restoring $20 million of the $104.5 million in cuts originally proposed by the subcommittee," she said, "and understand the difficult choices confronting the Appropriations Committee, CPB and the public broadcasting community are nonetheless committed to the funding levels in our original request."
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6343441?display=Breaking+News
* Harrison statement:
http://www.cpb.org/pressroom/release.php?prn=553x
* Smaller Bite Sought Out of Corporation for Public Broadcasting
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-cpb14jun14,1,705...
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6343441?display=Breaking%20News